If they wanted to stop it , they would've do that ages ago . Because now .. well now it's just too late to do that . They had to stop it once Satoshi Nakamoto launched it but I guess they didn't see it as threat back then .
As I said for now they can't do anything , one Country can for sure simply ban the Digital currency but it's expanding so fast and even if one Ban it , the others won't . so It's unstoppable .
~ Madness
That won't stop them trying I believe. But is it bypassable? I wonder if Bitcoins biggest threat will simply be the ignorance of the mainstream who won't know the difference between Bitcoin and a Government sponsored Crypto. |
|
|
|
If they want to stop it or severely limit its use they will just make it illegal to use or accept as payment or at the very least restrict its use with legislation and restrictions etc. Simple as that. I'm not sure if it'll ever grow to be a threat but it could become a alternative means but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
It reaks of desperation on the establishment's part. I mean if you ban Bitcoin you got to have an actual reason otherwise people are going to protest, scream and shout if suddenly it becomes illegal. It will start the mainstream asking questions why? I guess the reason I'm asking this question is for the community to think like they think and predict what kind of attacks Bitcoin will face. |
|
|
|
I would argue thats simply not possible however many times we are all told the Price of Bitcoin has tanked I won't believe it. Look at a logarithmic chart of Bitcoin, after such a massive rise all it has done has paused slightly. Once bitten by Bitcoin do you personally think you can leave it alone completely?
How many of us are actually "bitten by Bitcoin"? 100000? 500000? That's too small number to actually count for the banks. I agree, which is I believe the only reason Western governments are leaving us alone so far. But clearly as tech gets more user friendly and people send some bitcoin or a cureency collapse etc uptake will progress. Even at a snails pace we are progressing into the mainstream I believe. Look at how many companies are taking them we wouldn't dream would 2 years ago. Look at the CNN special about to be aired on Bitcoin. Its not going away. |
|
|
|
I would buy slowly huge amounts of BTC then dump them to make the price fall.
Then do that again.
And again..
..until 90% of the people here will give up.
Yeah, it would cost some money. But banks' smallest problem.
problem is it hits the symptoms not the cause. I would say government dumping of conficated Bitcoin is already trying to do this, but its life pushing a beachball under water it will only pop back up. I guess those in power could simply buy most Bitcoin and buy holding they become the new power rich. But I think banks want to be able to create inflation, simply being the richest isn't enough. But it could become a default and last resort that they simply decide if you cant beat them join them. But I think they would want to be creating some kind of Bitcoin deriverative that they control. As long as bitcoin value price is on decreasing trend, people are in fear. And fear makes adoption .. not really happen. If people will not trust bitcoin, but they like the technology, the banks may make their own regulated, centralized, safe, "backed up with their money" currencies. This would be the second step. I would argue thats simply not possible however many times we are all told the Price of Bitcoin has tanked I won't believe it. Look at a logarithmic chart of Bitcoin, after such a massive rise all it has done has paused slightly. Once bitten by Bitcoin do you personally think you can leave it alone completely? |
|
|
|
Trying to stop bitcoin is pointless as people will use other cyptocurrencies, there are already over 500 different ones http://coinmarketcap.com/all/views/all/So they will have to ban cryptocurrencies as a whole and in this case they will have a hard time to get people using their illegal cryptocurrency. Banning cryptocurrencies will not stop people from using it and if government wanted to ban cryptocurrencies they would have done so long time ago, now it is almost impossible to ban it without a kinda revolution, there is too much money at stake I think one way to destroy Bitcoin is to create too many cryptocurencies, it kind of undermines the concept in the eyes of the mainstream I think. |
|
|
|
I would buy slowly huge amounts of BTC then dump them to make the price fall.
Then do that again.
And again..
..until 90% of the people here will give up.
Yeah, it would cost some money. But banks' smallest problem.
problem is it hits the symptoms not the cause. I would say government dumping of conficated Bitcoin is already trying to do this, but its life pushing a beachball under water it will only pop back up. I guess those in power could simply buy most Bitcoin and buy holding they become the new power rich. But I think banks want to be able to create inflation, simply being the richest isn't enough. But it could become a default and last resort that they simply decide if you cant beat them join them. But I think they would want to be creating some kind of Bitcoin deriverative that they control. |
|
|
|
Ok I know to some what I'm saying is 'Conspiracy' but I say to them stop watching the mainstream media and wake up to the real world. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O8vM0-6EEESo it seems to me Bitcoin if and when it develops and grows WILL be a threat to the Western banking system, its a fact. So if you think the West won't do whatever they need to do to stop it or neutralize it then you're wrong. The question is we should think seriously how we would try to stop Bitcoin so we can predict what the Western governments will do to stop it. My first one is simple, they will first do their best to create fear and misinformation about it. (where we are today). I think at some point they might make illegal anyone who accepts it but this will bring too much attention to the why they would even do that....I don't rule it out however. They will try to create a government backed cryptocurrency that has a backdoor that allows them to increase the supply. What would you do if you wanted to stop Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
I came back today to continue an intelligent conversation but it looks like people have just turned to their real selves and are just mocking for the sake of mocking. Seems to me one person can't hold a contradictory opinion on here without the majority attempting to club him to death instead of having a genuine discussion. Typical group behaviour that has singled out humans as susceptible to evil be it Nazi, Communist state sponsored evil. http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307But if anyone is interested this is a great book that gives an intelligent walk through of faith from an unbelieving journalist and lawyer who genuinely wanted to understand and know what this faith was and became a believer in the process. The rest of you can fuck off, becoming a believing in God never gave anyone a licencee to treat me like a fucking wanker, Gays don't dare say a word against Gays. It Chritians yeah they are fair play.so fuck off and yeah I hope God judges your asses cause I personally don't have the compassion for your type of anti God Fuckwittery. |
|
|
|
When we see rappers wearing goldchain B signs then we are onto something.
 |
|
|
|
Seriously name another religion that predicted something would happen hundreds of years later and it did.
HG Wells predicted that man would go to the moon, and we did. So did Bitcoin (does that count as twice?). I actually was going to say prophesied, I kind of thought someone might pull me up on using prediction. They are two very very different things. Can you explain the difference? Yes. Well in the bible if a prophet talks about a coming messiah who will ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and his name will basically mean 'God among us' then its not the same as I recon this or this might happen based on the situation I see progessing. I mean Nostrodamus, ridiculous and vague as he was, was Prophesying. He didn't say I recon this might happen. I got to go to bed. its late here. |
|
|
|
Are you on crack? Seriously we are debating the origins of the Universe and you are comparing the originator or the BigBang as in the same realm as the source of Lightening. Seriously if you want a debate lay off the dumbjuice.
The Babylonians predated the Abrahamic God? Seriously? More crack. You are saying the origins of something are dated from the time we have recorded sources. Shit. So I guess Oxygen which was only 'discovered' and recorded was when Oxygen was started. Before we all simply died within a few minutes. In the words of Homer Simpson Dohhh!
Anymore embarrassing statements and you are dismissed from this adult debate.
So you need to be on crack to understand the most basic logic analysis? What else should you use in order to date any myth and religion but its recorded sources? Its own claim taken own face value? If yes, then there were buddhas billions of years before your god created your world, and you lose spectacularly. He cant follow a simple analogy, that before scientific discover all natural phenomena was based on a deity. I got he was making an analogy, what I said was it was a ridiculous one to make. |
|
|
|
Seriously name another religion that predicted something would happen hundreds of years later and it did.
HG Wells predicted that man would go to the moon, and we did. So did Bitcoin (does that count as twice?). I actually was going to say prophesied, I kind of thought someone might pull me up on using prediction. They are two very very different things. |
|
|
|
Are you on crack? Seriously we are debating the origins of the Universe and you are comparing the originator or the BigBang as in the same realm as the source of Lightening. Seriously if you want a debate lay off the dumbjuice.
The Babylonians predated the Abrahamic God? Seriously? More crack. You are saying the origins of something are dated from the time we have recorded sources. Shit. So I guess Oxygen which was only 'discovered' and recorded was when Oxygen was started. Before we all simply died within a few minutes. In the words of Homer Simpson Dohhh!
Anymore embarrassing statements and you are dismissed from this adult debate.
So you need to be on crack to understand the most basic logic analysis? What else should you use in order to date any myth and religion but its recorded sources? Its own claim taken own face value? If yes, then there were buddhas billions of years before your god created your world, and you lose spectacularly. You know Buddhas was by his own description just a man who claimed no supernatural powers etc..right? |
|
|
|
I don't think they all say that, otherwise what would be the point of hell?
Hell and Heaven are defining points. It's impossible to have a scale with one point only. Also, there is such thing as apocatastasis. It's another proof that we will all be in Heaven, even Satan. I'm pretty sure I've read rants by the Westboro Baptist Church promising Hell for gays and unbelievers. Are you saying they're wrong? And if they are wrong, how do you decide which Christian sect is correct? Ok so you might be happier about Hell for Pedofiles or mass murderers? Firstly Hell is debated by believers but generally you might want to avoid it even if it is just eternal separation from God and knowing you could of been with him. No as a Believer all men have fallen from the perfection of God. So gays, pedofiles, murderers are all welcome in Heaven if they repent and believe. No sin I believe will condem you but also even believers will be judged for the good they did. Trust me God is way more gracious than humans ever could be. We are the first to bay for blood when we are wronged. God came as a man to earth, I think that shows his compassion and desire to bring all men to himself. |
|
|
|
If I'm wrong I have Oblivion, If your wrong you have possibly eternal Judgement.
If clerics say the truth then we shouldn't worry about Judgement day. We'll all go to Heaven because God loves us. You basing your idea of God and I guess the Christian faith on chick flicks. You might want to ask the question again assuming you don't understand the faith you are critiquing. The fact is if God is God he can do what the hell he wants, so forming a concept of God based on your ideas is silly. If God said only left handed people go to Heaven then that would be how it rolls, cause he's God. God cannot in the Christian faith as a holy god simply bring into him those not made holy. What do think the whole Jewish idea of the slaughtered animals and then the real sacrifice of Christ is about. The Christian faith simply tells us God will reject those who have rejected him. Seriously name another religion that predicted something would happen hundreds of years later and it did. |
|
|
|
Who or what instigated the Big Bang?  Obviously.... Ask where lighting came from 2500 years ago and you'll get an equally ridiculous answer. Ask the Babylonians and they'll tell you Mardok killing Tiamat was the big bang. That predates the Abrahamic god. Shouldn't it be more valid? Are you on crack? Seriously we are debating the origins of the Universe and you are comparing the originator or the BigBang as in the same realm as the source of Lightening. Seriously if you want a debate lay off the dumbjuice. The Babylonians predated the Abrahamic God? Seriously? More crack. You are saying the origins of something are dated from the time we have recorded sources. Shit. So I guess Oxygen which was only 'discovered' and recorded was when Oxygen was started. Before we all simply died within a few minutes. In the words of Homer Simpson Dohhh! Anymore embarrassing statements and you are dismissed from this adult debate. I think his point was (although I'm not completely sure) is 'how do you choose which creation myth to believe?'. We aren't even talking religions....yet. Though I did in my first post explain my personal reasons for which one I believe is right and my rational. But no he clearly was suggesting that deciding a BigBang origins is the same as man at one time thinking Lightening was from a God/Gods rather than a natural process (which involves a creator) which is very different. But of course if he wants to go down the whole we were dumb then but now we arent he actually destroys any argument he now has cause I can simply say in 3 centuries people will think your understanding of the world is caveman like and foolish. I've not got the heart to tell him though.. |
|
|
|
It is quite peculiar, that religious persons in this thread are actually against the big bang theory. The big bang theory presents the option of there being a God, as it doesn't try to specify exactly how the big bang came around in the first place, though two popular assumptions was that colliding universes created the cosmic egg that turned into the big bang, or that God set the big bang in motion. The author of this thread and all those who argue against the big bang, are also arguing against your own religion and whatever god(s) you believe in. This new theory, http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html, explains that the Universe might be eternal, which means it never had a beginning and will never have an end. It also completely takes God(The Abrahamic) out of the picture, as it's stated in the bible, koran, and torah that God created the universe(Which means that the universe had a beginning) and that all things come to an end, both of which if this new theory is correct, would shown to be wrong. Just to throw this out there. Are you really completely confident in the fact there is no God and the Abrahamic/Christian faith that includes Judgement from the creator is wrong when the Scientists are constantly coming up with new theories and are debating constantly about what is right. Its like putting the potential of an eternal soul in the hands of a a bunch of geeks who wack off to Gillian Anderson on the XFiles. Shit I thought I needed to have faith. You guys are walking on millimeter thick ice. If I'm wrong I have Oblivion, If your wrong you have possibly eternal Judgement. I hope your a betting man that all I can say. You guys rock you're so brave!!!! |
|
|
|
Who or what instigated the Big Bang? Obviously.... Ask where lighting came from 2500 years ago and you'll get an equally ridiculous answer. Ask the Babylonians and they'll tell you Mardok killing Tiamat was the big bang. That predates the Abrahamic god. Shouldn't it be more valid? Are you on crack? Seriously we are debating the origins of the Universe and you are comparing the originator or the BigBang as in the same realm as the source of Lightening. Seriously if you want a debate lay off the dumbjuice. The Babylonians predated the Abrahamic God? Seriously? More crack. You are saying the origins of something are dated from the time we have recorded sources. Shit. So I guess Oxygen which was only 'discovered' and recorded was when Oxygen was started. Before we all simply died within a few minutes. In the words of Homer Simpson Dohhh! Anymore embarrassing statements and you are dismissed from this adult debate. |
|
|
|
It is quite peculiar, that religious persons in this thread are actually against the big bang theory. The big bang theory presents the option of there being a God, as it doesn't try to specify exactly how the big bang came around in the first place, though two popular assumptions was that colliding universes created the cosmic egg that turned into the big bang, or that God set the big bang in motion. The author of this thread and all those who argue against the big bang, are also arguing against your own religion and whatever god(s) you believe in. This new theory, http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html, explains that the Universe might be eternal, which means it never had a beginning and will never have an end. It also completely takes God(The Abrahamic) out of the picture, as it's stated in the bible, koran, and torah that God created the universe(Which means that the universe had a beginning) and that all things come to an end, both of which if this new theory is correct, would shown to be wrong. I guess you mean me even though i've made clear I don't believe in 'Religion' any more than you have a Religion. I simply think in all likelihood there is a God just like you don't think there is a God. I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest a BigBang meant there is no God I simply based on 99% of people I have met who don't believe in God use the BigBang theory as proof there doesn't need to be a God. I was simply based on that making the point any BigBang needed to be instigated. I mean and event witnessed needs a cause right? That's Science. I don't have a problem with Science I have a problem with amateur scientists who think Science has somehow ruled out God. |
|
|
|
Who or what instigated the Big Bang? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
